Search
Search results
PlanGrid Construction Software
Business and Productivity
App
PlanGrid is the #1 construction app. Use PlanGrid to reduce repeated trips to the trailer, minimize...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Table 19 (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Mean spirited and atrocious.
I really hated this film. There. BOOM. Got it off my chest.
It all starts so promisingly, with a scene of Anna Kendrick (“The Accountant“, who can be a very good actress) rejecting a wedding invitation; then accepting it; then burning it; then blowing it out; then posting it. I laughed. This was a rarity. There are about five more smile-worthy moments in the movie, most of which are delivered by Stephen Merchant.
Anna plays Eloise who was SUPPOSED to be maid-of-honour at her best friend’s wedding, but then broke up – messily – with her brother (the best man). She stubbornly attends the wedding in a posh hotel and finds herself on “Table 19” – a socially unfavourable location, full of a bunch of misfits that everyone expected to say “no” but didn’t; a molly-coddled and awkward teen (Tony Revolori, “Spider-man: Homecoming“) with the single goal of getting laid; “The Kepps” – a bickering married couple (Lisa Kudrow (“The Girl on the Train“, “Friends”) and Craig Robinson (“Hot Tub Time Machine”)); a convicted fraudster serving his sentence in an open prison ( Stephen Merchant, “Logan“) and a druggie former nanny of the bride (June Squibb, “In and Out”).
The fundamental problem with the movie is that Jeffrey Blitz’s script (he also directs) is not only not very funny, but it is so fundamentally focused on the greedy and needy nature of the table’s American reprobates that at every turn it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Their motives are all utterly selfish and there’s an “if we get away with it, then that’s fine” attitude that pervades the plot.
The nadir for me happens when – after trashing (albeit accidently) a key part of the wedding they are attending, they cover their selfish backsides by (deliberately) trashing the same key part of another wedding going on in the same hotel.
This is kind of positioned as a “revenge” sort of thing, but (in analysis) no wrong seems to have actually been done: its just another misunderstanding of the self-obsessed Eloise.
The Kepp’s story is also sad and selfish rather than comedic, and the resolution of this (and in fact all of the other sub-stories) for a nicely gift-wrapped ending is just saccharine and vomit-inducing.
This is a wedding present that should have come with a label in big red writing: “DO NOT OPEN“.
It all starts so promisingly, with a scene of Anna Kendrick (“The Accountant“, who can be a very good actress) rejecting a wedding invitation; then accepting it; then burning it; then blowing it out; then posting it. I laughed. This was a rarity. There are about five more smile-worthy moments in the movie, most of which are delivered by Stephen Merchant.
Anna plays Eloise who was SUPPOSED to be maid-of-honour at her best friend’s wedding, but then broke up – messily – with her brother (the best man). She stubbornly attends the wedding in a posh hotel and finds herself on “Table 19” – a socially unfavourable location, full of a bunch of misfits that everyone expected to say “no” but didn’t; a molly-coddled and awkward teen (Tony Revolori, “Spider-man: Homecoming“) with the single goal of getting laid; “The Kepps” – a bickering married couple (Lisa Kudrow (“The Girl on the Train“, “Friends”) and Craig Robinson (“Hot Tub Time Machine”)); a convicted fraudster serving his sentence in an open prison ( Stephen Merchant, “Logan“) and a druggie former nanny of the bride (June Squibb, “In and Out”).
The fundamental problem with the movie is that Jeffrey Blitz’s script (he also directs) is not only not very funny, but it is so fundamentally focused on the greedy and needy nature of the table’s American reprobates that at every turn it leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Their motives are all utterly selfish and there’s an “if we get away with it, then that’s fine” attitude that pervades the plot.
The nadir for me happens when – after trashing (albeit accidently) a key part of the wedding they are attending, they cover their selfish backsides by (deliberately) trashing the same key part of another wedding going on in the same hotel.
This is kind of positioned as a “revenge” sort of thing, but (in analysis) no wrong seems to have actually been done: its just another misunderstanding of the self-obsessed Eloise.
The Kepp’s story is also sad and selfish rather than comedic, and the resolution of this (and in fact all of the other sub-stories) for a nicely gift-wrapped ending is just saccharine and vomit-inducing.
This is a wedding present that should have come with a label in big red writing: “DO NOT OPEN“.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Regarding Henry (1991) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: Regarding Henry starts as we meet hotshot lawyer Henry Turner (Ford) he closes cases with ease and has the full trust of the partners in the firm, his strict behaviour does return home too with the way he controls his daughter Rachel (Allen), with his wife Sarah (Bening) dealing with reminding him of names at parties.
Henry’s life is turned upside down when he is shot in a head, leaving him with no memory, speech or mobility. Bradley (Nunn) his physical Therapist comes into this life to help teach him again as Sarah must adapt without the income that Henry once bought in. with Henry’s recovery going well, can a return home make him better, both in health and in his own personal standards of treating people.
Thoughts on Regarding Henry
Characters – Henry is a lawyer, he closes cases with ease, but doesn’t seem to be close to his family or friends, busy working for the most part of his life. When he gets shot in the head, he must learn to recover and learn everything again, this shows Henry a new way to look at life which will make him a better person. Sarah is the wife of Henry, she supports him through the tough time knowing he will remember his life in time. Bradley is the physical therapist that helps Henry break the first hurdles in his recovery.
Performances – Harrison Ford gives a performance we wouldn’t know him for, he does well for the most part, but there are moments he doesn’t hit the performance like he should. Annette Bening is good in her role through the film with Bill Nunn adding the extra moments needed in this film.
Story – The story here plays out like a fantasy film in places, we have one man that has a lift changing injury that makes him see life in a different point of view. We see his recovery process which shows us how the people in his life can change their opinions on one person after an injury impairs their abilities. This does tell the recovery process and clearly shows the changes Henry goes though which are good to see through the film.
Romance – The romance of the film is standard it shows the life both Henry and Sarah have had before and after the injury.
Settings – The film is set mostly in New York city, which is great as I always say, which helps show how the busy life of Henry affected his life.
Scene of the Movie – The rehab.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Moments Ford doesn’t hit the injury the way you believe.
Final Thoughts – This is a good drama that shows how injuries can affect lives, not just the person that is injured but the people close to them too.
Overall: Good Film which shows Ford in different light.
Henry’s life is turned upside down when he is shot in a head, leaving him with no memory, speech or mobility. Bradley (Nunn) his physical Therapist comes into this life to help teach him again as Sarah must adapt without the income that Henry once bought in. with Henry’s recovery going well, can a return home make him better, both in health and in his own personal standards of treating people.
Thoughts on Regarding Henry
Characters – Henry is a lawyer, he closes cases with ease, but doesn’t seem to be close to his family or friends, busy working for the most part of his life. When he gets shot in the head, he must learn to recover and learn everything again, this shows Henry a new way to look at life which will make him a better person. Sarah is the wife of Henry, she supports him through the tough time knowing he will remember his life in time. Bradley is the physical therapist that helps Henry break the first hurdles in his recovery.
Performances – Harrison Ford gives a performance we wouldn’t know him for, he does well for the most part, but there are moments he doesn’t hit the performance like he should. Annette Bening is good in her role through the film with Bill Nunn adding the extra moments needed in this film.
Story – The story here plays out like a fantasy film in places, we have one man that has a lift changing injury that makes him see life in a different point of view. We see his recovery process which shows us how the people in his life can change their opinions on one person after an injury impairs their abilities. This does tell the recovery process and clearly shows the changes Henry goes though which are good to see through the film.
Romance – The romance of the film is standard it shows the life both Henry and Sarah have had before and after the injury.
Settings – The film is set mostly in New York city, which is great as I always say, which helps show how the busy life of Henry affected his life.
Scene of the Movie – The rehab.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Moments Ford doesn’t hit the injury the way you believe.
Final Thoughts – This is a good drama that shows how injuries can affect lives, not just the person that is injured but the people close to them too.
Overall: Good Film which shows Ford in different light.
Climate Earth 3D
Weather and Education
App
The brand new Climate Earth 3D is a Hi-Def visualization of global weather conditions with forecasts...
Pocket Wiki for Hearthstone: Heroes of Warcraft
Reference and Utilities
App
Looking for help or the latest tips for the game Hearthstone: Heroes of Warcraft? This all-in-one...
VLC Remote
Entertainment and Music
9.0
Rate It
App
VLC Remote® lets you remotely control your VLC Media Player on your Mac or PC. Supports iPhone,...
Annie Chanse (15 KP) rated Shadows & Dreams in Books
Dec 19, 2017
Review** spoiler alert ** *Warning: contains spoilers, bad words, and quite a long rant*
To be honest, I was very disappointed in this book. It had a great premise, which meant it had the potential to be a really good story, but the writing style of the author just completely ruined this book for me.
The basic idea behind the story is that Kate Kane, a paranormal PI, sets off on a case to find the brother of a woman she slept with once, and during this investigation, she runs into ALL MANNER OF TROUBLE. There are vampires and werewolves and ex-girlfriends around every corner, just lurking and waiting to pounce on Miss Kane. It's a very busy and involved story, and if it had been better written, I would have easily given it four stars at least, but there was just TOO much about this book -- style-wise -- that drove me insane.
For instance:
1. The plot, itself, is actually fairly well thought out and developed and is nowhere NEAR as cheesy as it sounds when you hear, "Vampires fighting werewolves," -- which, let's be honest, these days is so trite and overdone that it is scoffed at on a regular basis. However, there IS a good story in this novel. But the way Hall writes the not-cheesy story is so cheesy that it makes you THINK the story is cheesy. A lot of cheese, huh? A little confusing? Well then, let me give you an example.
Page 7-8: "Truth be told it was a little bit awkward, but my social weirdness threshold has gone way up since my girlfriend tried to murder my ex-girlfriend because her ex-girlfriend tried to murder her."
Okay... a bit ridiculous, especially seven/eight pages in, but I can roll with it. However, at the bottom of page eight:
Kane asks, "Who saw him last?"
Her assistant -- who is actually a statue brought to life and gifted to Kate by a group of rats who are apparently all seeing and all knowing God-types -- says, "I don't know. [...] Probably somebody at the hospital."
Kane asks, "Which one?"
And the assistant replies with this fantastic line: "The Whittington. He broke his leg changing a light bulb. Because he was standing on a swivel chair because he's an idiot."
Okay, I concede that maybe this line is supposed to sound ridiculous and funny, so I can even let that one slide. But then, three pages later, Hall completely turns me off to the book with this:
"Well, fuck. I was about to be hired by a woman I'd very nearly slept with to find her missing brother who was working for the woman who'd left me for a tech startup at the tech startup she left me for."
Wh-wh-what?! Are you kidding me? Could that sentence BE anymore convoluted or that plot-point any more ridiculously stereotypical?
And what is truly awful is that the story itself REALLY WASN'T THAT BAD. I mean, the writing was awful, which, overall, meant that the novel was -- in my opinion, of course -- bad, but the way the story progressed WAS interesting. It was nowhere near as bad as these 'recaps' by the main character make it sound, but the problem is that Hall throws in these inner-monologues for Kane ALL throughout the book, and they are terrible! Which, in turn, decreases the value of the entire story.
Another example falls right on the heels of the page 11 jewel.
Page 14: "I really really hoped this wasn't going to be another zombie plague. There'd been an outbreak when I'd taken Eve up to Lake Windermere for our third anniversary, and we'd spent the whole weekend under siege in the hotel, making molotovs from the minibar and clubbing re-animated tourists to death with souvenir walking sticks."
Really? Zombies now? On top of the vampires, witches, and werewolves? Can we POSSIBLY fit anymore para into this normal?
Enough with that.
Now on to point number 2. The girl on girl sex scenes in this book between sexy, snarky PI and her vampire girlfriend, the Prince (yes, Prince) of Cups, should be hot, right? No. They are forced, fake, and ridiculous. Halfway through the first one, I thought, "Jesus. This isn't lesbian sex. This is lesbian sex if it was written by a man who WISHES he could see some lesbian sex." That was the point at which I decided to look up more info on Alexis Hall, and I found out that he is, in fact, a man, which at least explains the sex scenes.
#3. Speaking of sex scenes, Hall also has this really irritating -- and distracting -- habit of throwing in random, explicitly sexual thoughts at TOTALLY inappropriate times. Right in the middle of the most stressful situations -- being locked up, about to be killed, thrown in prison/on trial -- Kate Kane begins inner-monologuing with herself about how much she'd like to fuck whatever female happens to be standing in front of her. RIDICULOUS! And annoying. Hated it.
4. One of the MOST annoying things about this book, however, was that it was in DESPERATE need of a SERIOUS case of editing. All throughout the book there were glaring errors that any first year college student should have caught while reading. I'm willing to discount SOME of these "errors" as simply being lost in translation, as the book is written with a British tone, and I am very much American. However, SOME of these errors simply CANNOT be due to anything other than careless editing.
For instance, page 113: "It's main distinguishing feature, right, was that was it was blue."
WAS that WAS it WAS blue? What does that even mean? Oh, yes, it means that no one bothered editing this beast before printing.
Page 141: "Piercing the heart will paralyse, but it won't kill, and anything will do, it doesn't have to wood."
Okay, so maybe the "paralyse" is simply British, but surely the "doesn't have to wood" bit needs a "be" in there somewhere, right?
Page 157: "Have we have achieved case closed, Miss Kane?"
Yes, yes have we have.
There are several -- SEVERAL -- more examples of these type errors, but I'm not about to point them all out. If you read the book, I'm sure you'll easily catch them on your own.
5. Another thing that drove me NUTS was the repetition. The awful thing is I'm fairly certain that Hall used these repetitious lines PURPOSELY to create some kind of effect -- humor, maybe? Whatever the desired result, it failed to do anything other than annoy me.
For instance, page 163: "'Hi. So. Look.' I tried to find a way to express the fact I had some good news and some bad news that wasn't I've got some good news and some bad news. 'I've got some good news and some bad news.'"
...blink... ...falls over...
Page 177: "All the more reason to tell them. [...] If they know that we know that she has returned, then they will not be tempted to conspire against us out of the false belief that we do not know. Of course, they may already know, but at present, we have no way to know what they know. If we tell them, we will know what they know, and all we will not know is how long they have known it."
Oh. Jumping. Jesus. On. A. Pogo. Stick. Please tell me you aren't serious.
And there was this one thing that repeated over and over again throughout the book. The first time, it was actually pretty clever. The second time, even, was okay. But by the time I'd read it nine times -- yes, NINE TIMES, no exaggeration whatsoever -- I was ready to never EVER read anything like it ever again.
This particular phrase was something Kate Kane internalized or muttered aloud to herself each time she decided to do something stupid OR she felt her life was in danger. The basic format went something like this:
"Here lies Kate Kane, died peacefully in her sleep aged 94. Beloved daughter."
The "Here lies Kate Kane" part remained constant, as did the "Beloved daughter." It was only the middle part that changed, for instance, "Here lies Kate Kate. Should have minded her own business. Beloved daughter." Or perhaps, "Here lies Kate Kane. She made a difference to dozens. Beloved daughter."
This continued NINE TIMES. It is not cute, funny, or clever after about the second time, definitely after the third. BUT NINE TIMES?! Come on!
And finally, my last complaint.
6. Several of the items, scenes, quotes, etc. in this book seemed waaaaaaaaaay too close to things from other books for my taste. Perhaps it is simply a coincidence and the author did not intentionally siphon plot points and details from other authors -- except, of course, when he obviously did in his quotations, such as his use of "Not all those who wander are lost" and "As old as my tongue, a little bit older than my teeth" which are DIRECTLY taken from other books, but I'm hoping those were intentional and not attempted-to-get-away-with-it plagiarism.
But there are several things in this novel that could have been taken from Jim Butcher's "Dresden Files", Lewis' "Narnia" chronicles, and Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" series. I'm hoping, however, that they weren't, but they were very, very similar.
All in all, I'm disappointed to say that I was not a fan of this book at all, and I will most likely not be reading anymore Kate Kane books.
To be honest, I was very disappointed in this book. It had a great premise, which meant it had the potential to be a really good story, but the writing style of the author just completely ruined this book for me.
The basic idea behind the story is that Kate Kane, a paranormal PI, sets off on a case to find the brother of a woman she slept with once, and during this investigation, she runs into ALL MANNER OF TROUBLE. There are vampires and werewolves and ex-girlfriends around every corner, just lurking and waiting to pounce on Miss Kane. It's a very busy and involved story, and if it had been better written, I would have easily given it four stars at least, but there was just TOO much about this book -- style-wise -- that drove me insane.
For instance:
1. The plot, itself, is actually fairly well thought out and developed and is nowhere NEAR as cheesy as it sounds when you hear, "Vampires fighting werewolves," -- which, let's be honest, these days is so trite and overdone that it is scoffed at on a regular basis. However, there IS a good story in this novel. But the way Hall writes the not-cheesy story is so cheesy that it makes you THINK the story is cheesy. A lot of cheese, huh? A little confusing? Well then, let me give you an example.
Page 7-8: "Truth be told it was a little bit awkward, but my social weirdness threshold has gone way up since my girlfriend tried to murder my ex-girlfriend because her ex-girlfriend tried to murder her."
Okay... a bit ridiculous, especially seven/eight pages in, but I can roll with it. However, at the bottom of page eight:
Kane asks, "Who saw him last?"
Her assistant -- who is actually a statue brought to life and gifted to Kate by a group of rats who are apparently all seeing and all knowing God-types -- says, "I don't know. [...] Probably somebody at the hospital."
Kane asks, "Which one?"
And the assistant replies with this fantastic line: "The Whittington. He broke his leg changing a light bulb. Because he was standing on a swivel chair because he's an idiot."
Okay, I concede that maybe this line is supposed to sound ridiculous and funny, so I can even let that one slide. But then, three pages later, Hall completely turns me off to the book with this:
"Well, fuck. I was about to be hired by a woman I'd very nearly slept with to find her missing brother who was working for the woman who'd left me for a tech startup at the tech startup she left me for."
Wh-wh-what?! Are you kidding me? Could that sentence BE anymore convoluted or that plot-point any more ridiculously stereotypical?
And what is truly awful is that the story itself REALLY WASN'T THAT BAD. I mean, the writing was awful, which, overall, meant that the novel was -- in my opinion, of course -- bad, but the way the story progressed WAS interesting. It was nowhere near as bad as these 'recaps' by the main character make it sound, but the problem is that Hall throws in these inner-monologues for Kane ALL throughout the book, and they are terrible! Which, in turn, decreases the value of the entire story.
Another example falls right on the heels of the page 11 jewel.
Page 14: "I really really hoped this wasn't going to be another zombie plague. There'd been an outbreak when I'd taken Eve up to Lake Windermere for our third anniversary, and we'd spent the whole weekend under siege in the hotel, making molotovs from the minibar and clubbing re-animated tourists to death with souvenir walking sticks."
Really? Zombies now? On top of the vampires, witches, and werewolves? Can we POSSIBLY fit anymore para into this normal?
Enough with that.
Now on to point number 2. The girl on girl sex scenes in this book between sexy, snarky PI and her vampire girlfriend, the Prince (yes, Prince) of Cups, should be hot, right? No. They are forced, fake, and ridiculous. Halfway through the first one, I thought, "Jesus. This isn't lesbian sex. This is lesbian sex if it was written by a man who WISHES he could see some lesbian sex." That was the point at which I decided to look up more info on Alexis Hall, and I found out that he is, in fact, a man, which at least explains the sex scenes.
#3. Speaking of sex scenes, Hall also has this really irritating -- and distracting -- habit of throwing in random, explicitly sexual thoughts at TOTALLY inappropriate times. Right in the middle of the most stressful situations -- being locked up, about to be killed, thrown in prison/on trial -- Kate Kane begins inner-monologuing with herself about how much she'd like to fuck whatever female happens to be standing in front of her. RIDICULOUS! And annoying. Hated it.
4. One of the MOST annoying things about this book, however, was that it was in DESPERATE need of a SERIOUS case of editing. All throughout the book there were glaring errors that any first year college student should have caught while reading. I'm willing to discount SOME of these "errors" as simply being lost in translation, as the book is written with a British tone, and I am very much American. However, SOME of these errors simply CANNOT be due to anything other than careless editing.
For instance, page 113: "It's main distinguishing feature, right, was that was it was blue."
WAS that WAS it WAS blue? What does that even mean? Oh, yes, it means that no one bothered editing this beast before printing.
Page 141: "Piercing the heart will paralyse, but it won't kill, and anything will do, it doesn't have to wood."
Okay, so maybe the "paralyse" is simply British, but surely the "doesn't have to wood" bit needs a "be" in there somewhere, right?
Page 157: "Have we have achieved case closed, Miss Kane?"
Yes, yes have we have.
There are several -- SEVERAL -- more examples of these type errors, but I'm not about to point them all out. If you read the book, I'm sure you'll easily catch them on your own.
5. Another thing that drove me NUTS was the repetition. The awful thing is I'm fairly certain that Hall used these repetitious lines PURPOSELY to create some kind of effect -- humor, maybe? Whatever the desired result, it failed to do anything other than annoy me.
For instance, page 163: "'Hi. So. Look.' I tried to find a way to express the fact I had some good news and some bad news that wasn't I've got some good news and some bad news. 'I've got some good news and some bad news.'"
...blink... ...falls over...
Page 177: "All the more reason to tell them. [...] If they know that we know that she has returned, then they will not be tempted to conspire against us out of the false belief that we do not know. Of course, they may already know, but at present, we have no way to know what they know. If we tell them, we will know what they know, and all we will not know is how long they have known it."
Oh. Jumping. Jesus. On. A. Pogo. Stick. Please tell me you aren't serious.
And there was this one thing that repeated over and over again throughout the book. The first time, it was actually pretty clever. The second time, even, was okay. But by the time I'd read it nine times -- yes, NINE TIMES, no exaggeration whatsoever -- I was ready to never EVER read anything like it ever again.
This particular phrase was something Kate Kane internalized or muttered aloud to herself each time she decided to do something stupid OR she felt her life was in danger. The basic format went something like this:
"Here lies Kate Kane, died peacefully in her sleep aged 94. Beloved daughter."
The "Here lies Kate Kane" part remained constant, as did the "Beloved daughter." It was only the middle part that changed, for instance, "Here lies Kate Kate. Should have minded her own business. Beloved daughter." Or perhaps, "Here lies Kate Kane. She made a difference to dozens. Beloved daughter."
This continued NINE TIMES. It is not cute, funny, or clever after about the second time, definitely after the third. BUT NINE TIMES?! Come on!
And finally, my last complaint.
6. Several of the items, scenes, quotes, etc. in this book seemed waaaaaaaaaay too close to things from other books for my taste. Perhaps it is simply a coincidence and the author did not intentionally siphon plot points and details from other authors -- except, of course, when he obviously did in his quotations, such as his use of "Not all those who wander are lost" and "As old as my tongue, a little bit older than my teeth" which are DIRECTLY taken from other books, but I'm hoping those were intentional and not attempted-to-get-away-with-it plagiarism.
But there are several things in this novel that could have been taken from Jim Butcher's "Dresden Files", Lewis' "Narnia" chronicles, and Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" series. I'm hoping, however, that they weren't, but they were very, very similar.
All in all, I'm disappointed to say that I was not a fan of this book at all, and I will most likely not be reading anymore Kate Kane books.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Lady In The Van (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
In the last two decades America has seen an almost literal ‘invasion’ of British film and television programming. Like the British ‘music invasion’ some 60 years ago we just can’t seem to get enough of it. Today’s film for your consideration is the 2015 British dramatic comedy ‘The Lady In The Van’. Based upon the 1999 West End play of the same name written by Alan Bennett and starring famed British actress Maggie Smith, who also portrayed the lead in the original stage production at Queens Theater in London and again in a 2009 BBC 4 radio adaption, ‘The Lady In The Van’ follows the true story of Maggie Shepherd. An elderly lady who lived in a rundown van in Bennett’s driveway for 15 years.
Directed by Nicholas Hytner, who also directed the stage play, the film stars legendary British actress Maggie Smith as Maggie Shepherd, Alex Jennings as Alan Bennett, Jim Broadbent as Underwood, Deborah Findlay as Pauline, Roger Allam as Rufus, Gwen Taylor as Mam, Cecillia Noble as Miss Brisco, Nicholas Burns as Giles Perry, Pandora Colin as Mrs Perry, and Frances de la Tour As Ursula Vaughan Williams.
‘The Lady In The Van’ follows the true story of playwright Alan Bennett’s strained and tested relationship with Miss Maggie Shepherd. An eccentric and frightened homeless woman whom he befriended in the 1970s shortly after he moved into London’s Camden neighborhood. Originally, Bennett invites Shepherd to park her aging Bedford van in his driveway so she can list it as an address in order to collect benefits and eventually move on. Instead, Shepherd ends up living in the van in Bennett’s driveway for 15 years. Just before her death in 1989, Alan learns that Maggie Shepherd is actually Margaret Fairchild. A gifted piano player who was a pupil of pianist Alfred Cortot and had a fondness for Chopin. So much so that when she tried to become a nun, she was kicked out of her religious order twice for wanting to play music. Bennett also learns that the reason Shepherd was homeless was that she was on the run for leaving the scene of a crime she didn’t commit after escaping an institution where she’d been committed by her own brother.
I found this movie to be a prime example of the concept ‘Everyone Has A Story To Tell’. Whether the person wants to tell the story or not is a whole other idea entirely. The strange friendship between Bennett and Shepherd is certainly an unusual one to be sure. While Bennett’s neighbors would be happy to see they as they describe ‘the crazy old lady leave the neighborhood, Bennett seems to follow his writer’s instincts and also his humanity. Maggie Smith’s and Alex Jennings’s performances as the oddly paired friends go far in helping to comprehend what went on between the two. Shepherd and Bennett both excelled as artists in their own way. One as a writer one as a musician. Both kinds of artists tell stories thorough their respective crafts. In this case though, the writer (Bennett) had the ‘responsibility’ of telling Shepherd’s story after debating with himself more than once whether he had the right to do so and whether it was moral or not. On top of that, it took over a decade to find the answers Bennett was looking for. In the end, it seems Bennett did what writers do. They use what’s around them in their lives to write about. And perhaps, by doing so, he helped give Shepherd some sort of closure and perhaps peace as well just before her death.
I’m going to give this film 4 out of 5 stars. The movie clocks in at 104 minutes so it is a long movie but honestly, how can you say ‘no’ to a movie with Maggie Smith? Honestly, explain that one to me. She definitely ‘carries the film’ with her performance as Miss Mary Shepherd but the combination of her performance and that of Alex Jennings as the writer Alan Bennett that really make the film. I think another one of the reasons this film was good was because you had so many of the people that were involved in the original play that worked on the film itself. I personally find some British films, comedies in particular, to be a bit quirky sometimes. As funny as British humor is its sometimes difficult to grasp at first and there’s a bit of that in this film. Don’t let that discourage you though. If you can find an awesome art house movie theater, I’d certainly recommend going to catch it there. If you can’t, watch it online.
This is your friendly neighborhood freelance photographer and movie fanatic ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at Skewed & Reviewed I’d like to say ‘Thanks For Reading’ and we’ll see you at the movies.
Directed by Nicholas Hytner, who also directed the stage play, the film stars legendary British actress Maggie Smith as Maggie Shepherd, Alex Jennings as Alan Bennett, Jim Broadbent as Underwood, Deborah Findlay as Pauline, Roger Allam as Rufus, Gwen Taylor as Mam, Cecillia Noble as Miss Brisco, Nicholas Burns as Giles Perry, Pandora Colin as Mrs Perry, and Frances de la Tour As Ursula Vaughan Williams.
‘The Lady In The Van’ follows the true story of playwright Alan Bennett’s strained and tested relationship with Miss Maggie Shepherd. An eccentric and frightened homeless woman whom he befriended in the 1970s shortly after he moved into London’s Camden neighborhood. Originally, Bennett invites Shepherd to park her aging Bedford van in his driveway so she can list it as an address in order to collect benefits and eventually move on. Instead, Shepherd ends up living in the van in Bennett’s driveway for 15 years. Just before her death in 1989, Alan learns that Maggie Shepherd is actually Margaret Fairchild. A gifted piano player who was a pupil of pianist Alfred Cortot and had a fondness for Chopin. So much so that when she tried to become a nun, she was kicked out of her religious order twice for wanting to play music. Bennett also learns that the reason Shepherd was homeless was that she was on the run for leaving the scene of a crime she didn’t commit after escaping an institution where she’d been committed by her own brother.
I found this movie to be a prime example of the concept ‘Everyone Has A Story To Tell’. Whether the person wants to tell the story or not is a whole other idea entirely. The strange friendship between Bennett and Shepherd is certainly an unusual one to be sure. While Bennett’s neighbors would be happy to see they as they describe ‘the crazy old lady leave the neighborhood, Bennett seems to follow his writer’s instincts and also his humanity. Maggie Smith’s and Alex Jennings’s performances as the oddly paired friends go far in helping to comprehend what went on between the two. Shepherd and Bennett both excelled as artists in their own way. One as a writer one as a musician. Both kinds of artists tell stories thorough their respective crafts. In this case though, the writer (Bennett) had the ‘responsibility’ of telling Shepherd’s story after debating with himself more than once whether he had the right to do so and whether it was moral or not. On top of that, it took over a decade to find the answers Bennett was looking for. In the end, it seems Bennett did what writers do. They use what’s around them in their lives to write about. And perhaps, by doing so, he helped give Shepherd some sort of closure and perhaps peace as well just before her death.
I’m going to give this film 4 out of 5 stars. The movie clocks in at 104 minutes so it is a long movie but honestly, how can you say ‘no’ to a movie with Maggie Smith? Honestly, explain that one to me. She definitely ‘carries the film’ with her performance as Miss Mary Shepherd but the combination of her performance and that of Alex Jennings as the writer Alan Bennett that really make the film. I think another one of the reasons this film was good was because you had so many of the people that were involved in the original play that worked on the film itself. I personally find some British films, comedies in particular, to be a bit quirky sometimes. As funny as British humor is its sometimes difficult to grasp at first and there’s a bit of that in this film. Don’t let that discourage you though. If you can find an awesome art house movie theater, I’d certainly recommend going to catch it there. If you can’t, watch it online.
This is your friendly neighborhood freelance photographer and movie fanatic ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at Skewed & Reviewed I’d like to say ‘Thanks For Reading’ and we’ll see you at the movies.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Darkest Hour (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Not buggering it up.
As Doctor Who repeatedly points out, time is most definitely a tricksy thing. As I think I’ve commented on before, the events of 1940-45 are not in my lifetime but were sufficiently fresh to my parents that they were still actively talked about… so they still appear “current” to me. But I find it astonishing to realize that to a teen viewer this film is equivalent in timeframe to the sinking of the Titanic! #ancienthistory! So I suspect your connection to this film will be strongly affected by your age, and that was definitely reflected in the average age at my showing which must have been at least 60.
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Gemini Man (2019) in Movies
Nov 10, 2019
Will Smith plays top US hit-man Henry Brogan who is making the world "safer" one bullet at a time! With the mirror telling him his age, Henry hands in his firearm (not withstanding the arsenal under his stairs) to spend more time going fishing and doing the crossword.
But all is not well when Henry's 'one for the road' hit turns out to not be quite what it seems.
Teaming up with marina manager Danny (Danny??) Zakarweski (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), the pair go on the run from operatives of a government-funded black-ops organization called Gemini. Gemini is a private semi-military organization (didn't we just go here with "Angel Has Fallen"?!). These 'baddie goodies' would rather see Henry - and all who know him - fed to the fishes rather than have him catching them.
But one of these guys, under the direct command of Gemini-boss Clay Verris (Clive Owen), looks kinda familiar...
Let's focus on the positives for a minute. This is a spy movie that has all of the polish that the recent "Angel has Fallen" didn't have. Some nice photogenic locations fly in and out again (Georgia, Budapest and Colombia: the latter for no obvious reason I can remember!). It occasionally reminded me of a glossy Bond film, but without Bond.
There are also some high-class special effects (the special effects coordinator is Mark Hawker). A moonlit CGI Gulfstream with a zoom into the cockpit is particularly impressive.
Some of the action set pieces also entertain. A Will-on-Will bike chase is well done, and I've not seen a bike used as a hand-to-hand weapon in this way before!
And Will Smith is no doubt a class act, with his 'youngification' (I'm not sure what the official word is) also being effectively done. I also enjoyed Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who was great in "10 Cloverfield Lane". The lady has real screen presence.
But man oh man, that script. Let's name the guilty parties in this film: the scriptwriters David Benioff (Game of Thrones), Darren Lemke and Billy Ray. (I'll put Ray last in the list, since the story was by Benioff and Lemke and this has the smell to me of Ray - who has a history of some great scripts like Captain Phillips under his name - being drafted in to steady a listing ship).
Some of the dialogue in this film is not just a bit dodgy. It's head in the hands groan-worthy (and I actually did at times: fortunately the cinema was barely half full and I was on my own in the whole row). And some of it is just plain offensive. Henry meets his old pal Jack Willis (Douglas Hodge) on his yacht where he explains his wife is on a trip to Paris as a scantily clad dolly-bird wanders past. Henry comically rolls his eyes at this adulterous behaviour, with some sort of "Jack, what are you loike!" comment. Cringe-worthy.
Will Smith, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Benedict Wong (their ally, adding some comic relief) are clearly good actors. But the script often makes them look utterly vacuous and stupid. And Lee seems to have a "good enough, move on" approach to the filming. One jaw-dropping moment has Will Smith telling the others that they are going to Budapest. "Budapest?" Winstead and Wong are supposed to say in union, but mistime it. "Can we do that again?". Nope. It's on the screen.
As for Clive Owen... sorry, he's really not in the same acting league, and the script does him even fewer favours. As he says at one point "It's like the Hindenburg crashing into the Titanic". I couldn't have put it better myself.
"Uncanny Valley". You know this phrase. The Princess Leia and Moff Tarkin scenes in "Rogue One" is the classic example. Effects that don't quite work on the big screen. "But" - you say to yourself - "Dr Bob just said that the 'youngification' of Will Smith was done really well?". And I'll repeat again that it was. It's on a par with Samuel L. Jackson's 'youngification' in "Captain Marvel". Where something strange happens is in the film's overall projection. Ang Lee has tried again with his experiment of filming at a massive 120 frames per second..... five times the normal movie frame rate of 24 fps. And the quality of the picture - particularly during high-speed action scenes - becomes outstandingly good! But equally it just doesn't 'look right'.
When the human eye presumably works at an equivalent "fps" of thousands of 'frames per second' you'd think that it should all be fine. But for some reason I just found it distracting. Presumably the audiences for "The Jazz Singer" thought the same about sound; and those for "Gone with the Wind" and the "Wizard of Oz" about colour. Maybe we've seen the future, and its the new norm that we just need to get used to. We'll see.
Ang Lee's "Life of Pi" was extraordinary. His "Hulk" was one of the poorest of the Marvel canon. Unfortunately, this movie is at the "Hulk" end of the spectrum. Which is a real shame. The duo of the 51 year old Smith and the 35 year old Winstead work really well together. They have great chemistry, but, you'll be relieved to hear, avoid any icky love interest.
What a shame. With a different script, and some good production values, this could have been a very different story.
(For the full graphical review, please check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/10/18/one-manns-movies-film-review-gemini-man-2019/ )
But all is not well when Henry's 'one for the road' hit turns out to not be quite what it seems.
Teaming up with marina manager Danny (Danny??) Zakarweski (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), the pair go on the run from operatives of a government-funded black-ops organization called Gemini. Gemini is a private semi-military organization (didn't we just go here with "Angel Has Fallen"?!). These 'baddie goodies' would rather see Henry - and all who know him - fed to the fishes rather than have him catching them.
But one of these guys, under the direct command of Gemini-boss Clay Verris (Clive Owen), looks kinda familiar...
Let's focus on the positives for a minute. This is a spy movie that has all of the polish that the recent "Angel has Fallen" didn't have. Some nice photogenic locations fly in and out again (Georgia, Budapest and Colombia: the latter for no obvious reason I can remember!). It occasionally reminded me of a glossy Bond film, but without Bond.
There are also some high-class special effects (the special effects coordinator is Mark Hawker). A moonlit CGI Gulfstream with a zoom into the cockpit is particularly impressive.
Some of the action set pieces also entertain. A Will-on-Will bike chase is well done, and I've not seen a bike used as a hand-to-hand weapon in this way before!
And Will Smith is no doubt a class act, with his 'youngification' (I'm not sure what the official word is) also being effectively done. I also enjoyed Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who was great in "10 Cloverfield Lane". The lady has real screen presence.
But man oh man, that script. Let's name the guilty parties in this film: the scriptwriters David Benioff (Game of Thrones), Darren Lemke and Billy Ray. (I'll put Ray last in the list, since the story was by Benioff and Lemke and this has the smell to me of Ray - who has a history of some great scripts like Captain Phillips under his name - being drafted in to steady a listing ship).
Some of the dialogue in this film is not just a bit dodgy. It's head in the hands groan-worthy (and I actually did at times: fortunately the cinema was barely half full and I was on my own in the whole row). And some of it is just plain offensive. Henry meets his old pal Jack Willis (Douglas Hodge) on his yacht where he explains his wife is on a trip to Paris as a scantily clad dolly-bird wanders past. Henry comically rolls his eyes at this adulterous behaviour, with some sort of "Jack, what are you loike!" comment. Cringe-worthy.
Will Smith, Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Benedict Wong (their ally, adding some comic relief) are clearly good actors. But the script often makes them look utterly vacuous and stupid. And Lee seems to have a "good enough, move on" approach to the filming. One jaw-dropping moment has Will Smith telling the others that they are going to Budapest. "Budapest?" Winstead and Wong are supposed to say in union, but mistime it. "Can we do that again?". Nope. It's on the screen.
As for Clive Owen... sorry, he's really not in the same acting league, and the script does him even fewer favours. As he says at one point "It's like the Hindenburg crashing into the Titanic". I couldn't have put it better myself.
"Uncanny Valley". You know this phrase. The Princess Leia and Moff Tarkin scenes in "Rogue One" is the classic example. Effects that don't quite work on the big screen. "But" - you say to yourself - "Dr Bob just said that the 'youngification' of Will Smith was done really well?". And I'll repeat again that it was. It's on a par with Samuel L. Jackson's 'youngification' in "Captain Marvel". Where something strange happens is in the film's overall projection. Ang Lee has tried again with his experiment of filming at a massive 120 frames per second..... five times the normal movie frame rate of 24 fps. And the quality of the picture - particularly during high-speed action scenes - becomes outstandingly good! But equally it just doesn't 'look right'.
When the human eye presumably works at an equivalent "fps" of thousands of 'frames per second' you'd think that it should all be fine. But for some reason I just found it distracting. Presumably the audiences for "The Jazz Singer" thought the same about sound; and those for "Gone with the Wind" and the "Wizard of Oz" about colour. Maybe we've seen the future, and its the new norm that we just need to get used to. We'll see.
Ang Lee's "Life of Pi" was extraordinary. His "Hulk" was one of the poorest of the Marvel canon. Unfortunately, this movie is at the "Hulk" end of the spectrum. Which is a real shame. The duo of the 51 year old Smith and the 35 year old Winstead work really well together. They have great chemistry, but, you'll be relieved to hear, avoid any icky love interest.
What a shame. With a different script, and some good production values, this could have been a very different story.
(For the full graphical review, please check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/10/18/one-manns-movies-film-review-gemini-man-2019/ )
